Self-enquiry 

Of the different methods for Self-realization, Self-enquiry may be said to be drawing an ever-increasing attention in modern times. The directness of its logic and the simplicity of its practice, so assiduously brought home to us by Bhagavan Ramana, induce us to attempt it in preference to other established methods. A great many fortunate ones succeed in making it their sole sadhana.

However, it appears that many among the lay adherents to Self-enquiry do not have an adequate comprehension of the method. They find it difficult to fathom the exact manner of enquiring into the origin of the I-thought. Some infer the right method correctly, 

but do not feel sure of it, as their experience does not seem to tally with what they read from books. So, they keep looking for alternatives instead of pursuing steadfastly the direct course that their intuition tells them is correct. 

It is therefore advisable to obtain a proper understanding of the method before we start Self-enquiry. We will then realize that the practice puts us at once in sight of the ‘distant’ goal, much as a mountaineer obtains a glimpse of Mount Everest from afar through layers of mist and fog. There will be no more doubt as to our being on the right track, however long our practice may take for its fruition. An attempt is made here to present a detailed understanding of Self-enquiry in the light of the above. At first, an overview of the method is given, without going into the specifics of enquiring into the Self. These specifics pertaining to the inner core of practice are taken up in Part Two, based on the explanations given by Bhagavan, and with due note taken of the reported experiences and observations of some of Bhagavan’s foremost disciples. 

​

Sadhana by Self-enquiry 

Sadhana for Self-realization is the process of progressive withdrawal of the mind from its forays in the wide world, to its source, the Self. This withdrawal of the mind, which really amounts to ‘renunciation of the non-Self’, may be said to take place in three stages.

At first, we (as the mind) give up the so-called ‘external’ world, which means the world of our sensory interactions (sight, touch, etc). In practice, it amounts to giving up interest in sense-objects, and is referred to as cultivation of ‘external’ (or bahir-) vairagya. If, with such a detached mind, we sit in an asana for practising Self-enquiry, the body makes no demands for attention from the mind, and so, in effect, we transcend the gross body. It signifies the first stage of renunciation, which relates to the physical plane.

Our consciousness is then limited to the subtle sphere, which is the world of our thoughts. We now have to renounce this ‘internal’ world. We give up every thought that comes to the mind, and adhere just to the ‘I-thought’ which lies at the root of them all. We may call this ‘internal’ (or antara-) vairagya. Our consciousness now becomes confined to our ‘subtle body’, or more specifically, to the vijnanamaya-kosa (intellect, with ego as its modification). This represents the second stage of renunciation. 

The ‘I-thought’ is otherwise called the ‘ego’. It is often looked upon as the ‘gateway’ to the Self, because it is only after crossing it that we gain a glimpse of the Self. As Bhagavan says, when the mind or the ego looks outward, it sees the ‘world’ (whether ‘external’ or ‘internal’, or both). When the mind turns inward, it is said to be identified with the Self. This ‘turning inward’ of the mind is the most crucial step in Self-enquiry practice. We shall consider it in detail in Part Two. The general idea is as follows.

When we delve into the ‘I-thought’, we hurtle down into the causal plane, comprised of the numerous vasanas (predispositions or ‘tendencies’) that have accrued to us from innumerable past lives and the present one. These vasanas, though unseen, tend to obscure our view of the Self, which lies at the core of the ‘I-thought’ — as its very source. If we can somehow negotiate our way, bypassing these vasanas, just as a person might grope his way past obstacles in a dark room towards a ticking clock, we will be able to reach our goal, the Self. Basically, this is what Self-enquiry is all about. This ‘transcendence’ of the vasanas, in other words, the causal body, constitutes the third stage of renunciation, and leads to Realization.

Sadhana can thus be viewed essentially as a matter of transcendence of the three bodies in ‘successive’ stages of renunciation. Self-enquiry, as a method of sadhana, is primarily understood to comprise the second and third of these stages. 

 

Realization and Liberation

The term ‘Realization’ (short for Self-realization) is used in literature in two ways. When used in the context of a gradual unfoldment of sadhana, the term is understood to mean ‘Self-abidance’. In the wider context of, say, the goal of life or in a comparison of sadhana methods, the term is taken to be synonymous with ‘Liberation’. In the present article, the discussion mostly concerns the ongoing process of sadhana. Hence, ‘Realization’ shall generally be understood here in the sense of ‘Self-abidance’. 

‘Realization’, thus, is held to be different from Liberation. Liberation involves a total annihilation of all vasanas, and is irrevocable. Realization, on the other hand, can result even from a temporary transcendence of the vasanas, brought about by the strength of will of the seeker (enabled by Grace). Since the vasanas are not destroyed, they re-establish their hold on the seeker some time later. This they do by projecting thoughts, and so disrupting the ‘thought-free awareness’ that characterises Realization. As long as the causal body of vasanas lasts, it keeps projecting the subtle world of thoughts sooner or later. When it happens, the seeker is obliged to repeat Self-enquiry to regain the state of Realization.

So, if the state of Realization is to last permanently, the vasanas must be extinguished totally. The seeker is powerless to bring this about directly by himself because the vasanas belong to the causal plane which is ‘subtler’ than his mind, the sole instrument at his disposal. He cannot therefore discern the vasanas (causal objects) with his mind — just as we cannot see our thoughts (subtle objects) with our physical eyes. So, the only way available to the seeker for overcoming the vasanas is an indirect one.

When we indulge in any thought (with or without bodily action), a residual impression, or vasana, of it is left behind in our causal body even after the thought has passed. If the same thought is repeated a 

number of times, the vasana gathers strength. It is somewhat like the furrows in a farmer’s land getting deeper and deeper with his repeated tilling of the land. A vasana (‘tendency’) has the characteristic trait that it reinforces and projects time and again the original thought that caused it. If we entertain that thought, as we are normally prone to do, it, in turn, reinforces that vasana. There is thus a natural tendency for the vasanas to grow strong and become firmly entrenched. 

If the farmer leaves his tilled land unattended and exposed to the elements for long enough, the furrows are levelled due to the forces of nature and disappear. Similarly, if by holding on to the state of Self-abidance (which is thought-free), the vasanas are denied any scope to project thoughts (and so reinforce themselves), they shrivel and die under the glare of the Self. This is the indirect and the only way to annihilate the vasanas. 

Hence, the sadhaka should always try to remain in the state of Realization. This also helps in other ways. Since the seeker now spends less time in the ‘thoughtful’ state, there is less scope for the creation of new vasanas. Meanwhile, his will too gathers strength as a positive vasana. As a result, he can remain longer in the state of Realization, and this in turn further weakens the vasanas. There will thus be a snow-balling effect in favour of the extinction of all vasanas, which brings about Liberation. 

From the above it is clear that both Realization and Liberation are states of abidance in the Self. Realization is ‘thoughtless’, but can co-exist with dormant vasanas. Liberation, on the other hand, is ‘thoughtless’ as well as ‘vasana-less’. Realization, when it is rendered permanent by the eradication of all the vasanas, is Liberation. 

 

Self-enquiry as a Three-step Sadhana 

We generally tend to think that Self-enquiry consists of two steps, namely, giving up the existing thoughts in favour of the ‘I-thought’, and investigation of the source of the ‘I-thought’ to attain the state of Realization. This however, is not the complete picture. Sadhana cannot end with mere Realization, since it will lapse after some time and ignorance will return, due to the influence of the vasanas. Hence the aim must be to abide in the state of Realization as long and as often as possible till all the vasanas are extinguished and Liberation is attained. Self-enquiry, therefore, must be considered to consist of not two, but three steps; the third step being a continued abidance in the Self. 

 

Two-step and One-step Models of Self-enquiry

When a seeker, relatively new to the practice of Self-enquiry, sits for practice, he will be besieged by thoughts to an unprecedented degree, as his mind tends to revolt sensing his efforts to discipline it. The seeker will then find it appropriate to use the query, “To whom are these thoughts?” to which the answer, “To me” brings to the fore the ‘I-thought’. As he advances in his sadhana, the distracting thoughts decrease, and he finds that he can summon the ‘I-thought’ in an instant by merely willing it, without need for the query. It means he has no more use for the first step of Self-enquiry. To him, Self-enquiry now consists of only the latter two steps, namely, investigation of the ‘I-thought’ to attain the Self, and continued abidance in the Self. We may refer to this as the ‘two-step model’ of Self-enquiry. 

When the seeker, who is up to this level, wants to investigate the source of the ‘I-thought’, he first asks himself, “Whence am I?” In order to get the answer he plunges into the causal zone, where he is, so to say, to ‘grope’ for his Self. Initially, he may not succeed in ‘sighting’ it clearly, but with sustained practice finally achieves it. With further practice at this level, he reaches a stage when he can summon his abidance in the Self with just a little effort, just as he became able to summon the ‘I-thought’ earlier. He then has no more need for the said query. Self-enquiry, for him, is reduced to the single step of abidance in the Self. We shall refer to this as the ‘one-step model’ of Self-enquiry. 

We thus see that the interpretation of Self-enquiry differs with the degree of maturity of the sadhaka. When the sadhaka is fresh to the task, it will appear to him as a three-step sadhana, and as he gathers experience, the number of steps is reduced to two and then to one. When we read Bhagavan’s teachings, we come across certain statements which are specific to sadhakas with one or more of these backgrounds. If we do not distinguish them properly, such statements will be incomprehensible, and throw us into confusion. The following cases illustrate the point. 

​

Effort in Self-enquiry

Bhagavan has said that in Self-enquiry, though effort is at first required, a stage will come, short of attainment of the goal, when it will be impossible to put in any effort. At first this statement will look puzzling, since we cannot ordinarily fathom how a sadhana can go on without any effort. The meaning will be clear only when we admit step-3 as a part of Self-enquiry, such as in the three-step model of Self-enquiry. We see then that effort is required to practise the first two steps. But when we come to the last step — that of continued abidance in the Self — there is no scope to make any effort since the ‘agent’ (ego) that is to make the effort, is merged in the Self. Yet, sadhana continues by way of annulment of the vasanas. Thus Bhagavan’s statement applies to the three-step or two-step model. 

 

Means and Ends

Bhagavan has often characterised Self-enquiry as a sadhana in which the means are the same as the end. The statement can be baffling, since the question arises, “If they are identical, how does one lead to the other?” Further, if they are the same, the end must be realized the moment the means are set in motion, negating any need for sadhana. These anomalies disappear when we realize that here Bhagavan is identifying Self-enquiry with the one-step model. According to this view, sadhana consists merely in holding onto ‘the abidance in the Self’, and this too, serves as the means to eradicate the vasanas. When sadhana concludes with the eradication of all the vasanas, the end-state of Liberation is obtained. This is a state of abidance in the Self. The means adopted for sadhana are thus the same as its end. 

 

Duality and Non-duality in Sadhana; Meditation and Self-enquiry

The two-step model of Self-enquiry has been adopted by Bhagavan for the categorisation of meditation and Self-enquiry. Meditation, as he says, consists of ‘concentration on a single thought’, the thought being that of an ‘object’. An ‘object’ is regarded as an entity external to the ego, which is the ‘subject’ or ‘doer of sadhana’. Bhagavan therefore terms meditation as an ‘objective’ sadhana. In the two-step model of Self-enquiry, the attention of the seeker initially starts with a consideration of the ‘I-thought’, which is the ego or the ‘subject’. It ends with the Self, which is internal to the ego, and with which the ego identifies itself. Self-enquiry is thus concerned all through with the ‘subject’ alone. It is therefore termed a ‘subjective’ sadhana, unlike meditation which is ‘objective’. Bhagavan is emphatic that this is how meditation and Self-enquiry differ from each other. So, if ever a doubt should arise as to whether a particular sadhana is meditation or Self-enquiry, the issue should be settled on the basis of this criterion. 

If, instead of the two-step model, we adopt the single-step model for Self-enquiry, sadhana consists of mere abidance in the state of Realization, which is a non-dual state. From this viewpoint, Self-enquiry can be termed a ‘non-dual sadhana’. Other sadhanas such as meditation necessarily involve the ego, which is composed of many parts, and so they come to be classed as ‘dualistic’ sadhanas. The duality referred to here is the absolute duality — that between the Self and the non-Self, whereas the categorisation given by Bhagavan is based on the subject-object duality at the level of the ego, not the Self. 

 

Meditations mistaken for Self-enquiry

Certain meditations are sometimes mistaken for Self-enquiry due to the similarity of terms used in their nomenclature. Notable examples are ‘meditation on the heart-centre’, and the so-called ‘meditation on the Self’. Meditation on the heart-centre finds mention in the Upanishads under the name of dahara-vidya, and is regarded as an important kind of saguna meditation. Here, the object of meditation is a small cavity imagined to be there in a subtle ‘heart’ situated near the breast-bone. This is sometimes confused with the Heart spoken of by Bhagavan as our spiritual centre, and on this basis ‘meditation on the heart-centre (understood as Heart)’ is taken to mean Self-enquiry. This is clearly incorrect, since the Heart cannot be an ‘object’ to the ego, but is its very source. There can therefore be nothing like a ‘meditation’ on the Heart to speak of. 

The term ‘meditation on the Self’ has been used by Bhagavan on at least two occasions, and on both occasions it is clear that he meant it as a meditation, and not Self-enquiry. However, since the true Self cannot be an object of thought, the term must be understood to stand for ‘meditation on an aspect of the Self’. Such a meditation is said to be of two kinds, namely, nirguna and saguna meditations, and finds wide mention in the Upanishads.

Mountain Path  July 2010